View Single Post
Old 04-28-2016, 06:36 AM   #10
Jane M
Senior Member
 
Location: Paris

Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenoMax View Post
Those may be the optical duplicates that were generated by pad-hopping (or PCR during prep). You can try to run the Picard MarkDuplicates protocol (including the optical dup marking) and see if they get flagged. I have tried doing this with a limited number of samples from HiSeq 4000 but have not managed to get useful results for the optical part.
I tried your suggestion on both unmapped and mapped reads for one polyA and one ribo sample:

Quote:
java -Xmx6g -jar picard/1.134/picard.jar MarkDuplicates INPUT=$path/unmapped.bam OUTPUT=$path/unmapped_MarkDuplicates.bam METRICS_FILE=unmapped_metrics OPTICAL_DUPLICATE_PIXEL_DISTANCE=2500 REMOVE_DUPLICATES=true VALIDATION_STRINGENCY=LENIENT CREATE_INDEX=true
Quote:
java -Xmx6g -jar picard/1.134/picard.jar MarkDuplicates INPUT=$path/ARN_POP.bam OUTPUT=$path/ARN_POP_MarkDuplicates.bam METRICS_FILE=mapped_metrics OPTICAL_DUPLICATE_PIXEL_DISTANCE=2500 REMOVE_DUPLICATES=true VALIDATION_STRINGENCY=LENIENT CREATE_INDEX=true
For both runs, I got:
ribo sample:
Quote:
unmapped_metrics file:
## METRICS CLASS picard.sam.DuplicationMetrics
LIBRARY UNPAIRED_READS_EXAMINED READ_PAIRS_EXAMINED UNMAPPED_READS UNPAIRED_READ_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_OPTICAL_DUPLICATES PERCENT_DUPLICATION ESTIMATED_LIBRARY_SIZE
Unknown Library 0 0 31234334 0 0 0 ?

mapped_metrics
## METRICS CLASS picard.sam.DuplicationMetrics
LIBRARY UNPAIRED_READS_EXAMINED READ_PAIRS_EXAMINED UNMAPPED_READS UNPAIRED_READ_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_OPTICAL_DUPLICATES PERCENT_DUPLICATION ESTIMATED_LIBRARY_SIZE
Unknown Library 5909662 58551716 0 5344654 19348992 19322086 0.358032 28585819416
polyA sample:
Quote:
ribo sample:
## METRICS CLASS picard.sam.DuplicationMetrics
LIBRARY UNPAIRED_READS_EXAMINED READ_PAIRS_EXAMINED UNMAPPED_READS UNPAIRED_READ_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_OPTICAL_DUPLICATES PERCENT_DUPLICATION ESTIMATED_LIBRARY_SIZE
Unknown Library 0 0 2754730 0 0 0 ?

mapped_metrics
## METRICS CLASS picard.sam.DuplicationMetrics
LIBRARY UNPAIRED_READS_EXAMINED READ_PAIRS_EXAMINED UNMAPPED_READS UNPAIRED_READ_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_DUPLICATES READ_PAIR_OPTICAL_DUPLICATES PERCENT_DUPLICATION ESTIMATED_LIBRARY_SIZE
Unknown Library 1913720 64301596 0 1502675 32452071 28720194 0.508799 157544313
I got results for mapped reads only, maybe because they are mainly paired. The ribo sample, sequenced on HiSeq4000 has less PERCENT_DUPLICATION (36%) than the polyA sample (51%), sequenced on NextSeq 500. I was expected the contrary And these percentages seem very high. Is it normal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenoMax View Post
You can use the sequence of the human rDNA repeat found here to map against.
To test if more reads correspond to rRNA sequence in ribodepleted sample than in polyA sample, I first ran blast on the first 10 unmapped reads, but on "Nucleotide collection (nr/nt)" database this time. Now, for the ribodepleted sample, 9/10 had significant similarities, each had several similarities, often to 45S/60S, as Chipper suggested. For the polyA sample, again 9/10 had significant similarities, each had several similarities too, but not especially to ribosome.

Then, I converted unmapped.bam with bamToFatq. I downloaded the gtf of rRNA and tRNA from UCSC tables.
After creating a new transcriptome index, I reran the mapping with the preprocessed fastq:
Quote:
tophat/v2.1.0/bin/tophat2 -p 8 --transcriptome-index=rDNATranscriptome/rDNA -o /myfolder/rDNA_tophat_out --read-realign-edit-dist 0 --mate-inner-dist 98 --mate-std-dev 20 --min-anchor-length 4 --splice-mismatches 0 --min-intron-length 50 --max-intron-length 500000 --no-coverage-search --library-type fr-firststrand --min-coverage-intron 50 --max-coverage-intron 20000 --min-segment-intron 50 --max-segment-intron 500000 Bowtie2/myNewBowtie2Index myfolder/unmapped.R1.fastq myfolder/unmapped.R2.fastq
If most of the unmapped reads correspond to rRNA, I should now get a higher mapping rate for ribodepleted sample than for polyA sample. Waiting for these results.
Jane M is offline   Reply With Quote